this is my opinion on marijuana. Honestly, I think in small doses, marijuana is fine, just like alcohol. Take everything in moderation, and don't abuse it, just like how you shouldn't abuse other LEGAL substances like alcohol, fast food, or even gaming/internet addictions. There are MANY people who have been smoking marijuana for YEARS and there has been little to no damage done to their body whatsoever.

But even if it did do damage to your body, who are we to tell full grown adults what they can or can't do? In the end its all free choice and whatever you has its own consequences, you should research on it and make your own choices to decide whether or not to take up on marijuana smoking.

Your contradicting moral claim in the form of "shouldn't" statement, and an amoral stance on free choice, doesn't make your opinion convincing at all.

Moreover, when the sociologicalprocess for addictive behavior in humans only requires an "if, then maybe" situation of uncertainty in reward, in order to frame an abusive and manipulative pattern within the human brain due to the result of dopamine level going over the roof. The moment when someone believes that he might feel better if he consumes marijuana, that mindset would triggered his addictive behavior, because now he's perceiving the situation in the "if, then maybe" framework. No free-choice required.

Also, "free-choice" is really an illusion. Especially when considering the reality of how "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" can be done through the process of "framing", while OTOH humans aren't really in control of their own decision-making process.

Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.

Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
---- from "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? "

Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.

What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.
Drug related crimes would drop significantly

What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.

Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.

What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.
Drug related crimes would drop significantly

What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.

And before you assume anything, no I don't smoke.

I don't give a damn if you smoke it or not....the bottom line here is that your a fool for spewing this BS I just read, and not even a response about the video I put on my post!

Not only that, but you're also a supporter of making it legalized, why the hell should I even waste anymore my time in this thread trying to reason with brainwashed fools like you? People that have been duped into thinking that this toxic plant is oh-so-wonderful for everyone to use.

Don't even bother responding, because I know you'll just call me every name under the sun for not mentaly jumping off the bridge with you to lie to myself about how wonderful your wonder drug is.

Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.

What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.Drug related crimes would drop significantly

What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.

2)It's historically proven that legalization of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol didn't eliminate said substance abuses, but neither did it stop the trades of black market bootlegged goods of said substances. Furthermore, organized criminal drug trade can still out compete government regulated program through exploitation and cost-cutting within the supply chain.

3)When money is in fact made of debt, the government and the public as a whole have no money to begin with.

it should totally be legal, recreationally and medically. If alcohol, benzos, and painkillers are legal, why not marijuana (all kinds of people both takem for medical and recreational reasons anyway, except for alcohol, just recreational). The only thing that marijuana doesn't have in common with the rest of those is that it is NOT physically addictive. It's just the "image" that people put on it that makes it look bad. if the govt made it legal, they would free up space in prisons, they could tax the **** out of it, and we wont have cartels sneaking "as many" drugs into the US.

it should totally be legal, recreationally and medically. If alcohol, benzos, and painkillers are legal, why not marijuana (all kinds of people both takem for medical and recreational reasons anyway, except for alcohol, just recreational). The only thing that marijuana doesn't have in common with the rest of those is that it is NOT physically addictive. It's just the "image" that people put on it that makes it look bad. if the govt made it legal, they would free up space in prisons, they could tax the **** out of it, and we wont have cartels sneaking "as many" drugs into the US.

When the sociologicalprocess for addictive behavior in humans only requires an "if, then maybe" situation of uncertainty in reward, in order to frame an abusive and manipulative pattern within the human brain due to the result of dopamine level going over the roof. The moment when someone believes that he might feel better if he consumes marijuana, that mindset would triggered his addictive behavior, because now he's perceiving the situation in the "if, then maybe" framework. No physical addiction necessary.

It's historically proven that legalization of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol didn't eliminate said substance abuses, but neither did the regulation stop the trades of black market bootlegged goods of said substances. Furthermore, organized criminal drug trade can still out compete government regulated program through exploitation and cost-cutting within the supply chain.

Finally, when modern fiat money is in fact made of debt, the government and the public as a whole have no money to begin with.

this is my opinion on marijuana. Honestly, I think in small doses, marijuana is fine, just like alcohol. Take everything in moderation, and don't abuse it, just like how you shouldn't abuse other LEGAL substances like alcohol, fast food, or even gaming/internet addictions. There are MANY people who have been smoking marijuana for YEARS and there has been little to no damage done to their body whatsoever.

But even if it did do damage to your body, who are we to tell full grown adults what they can or can't do? In the end its all free choice and whatever you has its own consequences, you should research on it and make your own choices to decide whether or not to take up on marijuana smoking.

Your contradicting moral claim in the form of "shouldn't" statement, and an amoral stance on free choice, doesn't make your opinion convincing at all.

Moreover, when the sociologicalprocess for addictive behavior in humans only requires an "if, then maybe" situation of uncertainty in reward, in order to frame an abusive and manipulative pattern within the human brain due to the result of dopamine level going over the roof. The moment when someone believes that he might feel better if he consumes marijuana, that mindset would triggered his addictive behavior, because now he's perceiving the situation in the "if, then maybe" framework. No free-choice required.

Also, "free-choice" is really an illusion. Especially when considering the reality of how "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" can be done through the process of "framing", while OTOH humans aren't really in control of their own decision-making process.

Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.

Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
---- from "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? "

Well anything these days can be considered an addiction whether its marijuana, heroin, food, alcohol, or shopping. But when i say physically addictive..withdrawal and tolerance. Yah there is a physical tolerance with marijuana, but you dont see a consistent marijuana smoker shaking in his bed and sweating from withdrawal when they don't have their fix. While xanax is a legal prescription that is probably a lot stronger than alcohol and its withdrawal effects can cause death. All im trying to say is theres no logic in making marijuana illegal, when there are other legal substances that are a lot more dangerous that should be illegal. I just dont think anyone should get in trouble for possessing marijuana. Like why should someone not be able to get a job just because they smoke marijuana? I'd say, let the smokers smoke.

Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.

What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.
Drug related crimes would drop significantly

What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.

And before you assume anything, no I don't smoke.

I don't give a damn if you smoke it or not....the bottom line here is that your a fool for spewing this BS I just read, and not even a response about the video I put on my post!

Not only that, but you're also a supporter of making it legalized, why the hell should I even waste anymore my time in this thread trying to reason with brainwashed fools like you? People that have been duped into thinking that this toxic plant is oh-so-wonderful for everyone to use.

Don't even bother responding, because I know you'll just call me every name under the sun for not mentaly jumping off the bridge with you to lie to myself about how wonderful your wonder drug is.

this is why being a liberal is so popular nowadays. You can just stick your head in the sand, ignore all the facts, and just continue advocating policies that harm society. And the ironic part is, is that they actually think they're making society better. Who do you think you are judging people and telling them what they can or can't do?

Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.

What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.
Drug related crimes would drop significantly

What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.

And before you assume anything, no I don't smoke.

I don't give a damn if you smoke it or not....the bottom line here is that your a fool for spewing this BS I just read, and not even a response about the video I put on my post!

Not only that, but you're also a supporter of making it legalized, why the hell should I even waste anymore my time in this thread trying to reason with brainwashed fools like you? People that have been duped into thinking that this toxic plant is oh-so-wonderful for everyone to use.

Don't even bother responding, because I know you'll just call me every name under the sun for not mentaly jumping off the bridge with you to lie to myself about how wonderful your wonder drug is.

Brainwashed? Really?
If I happen to be wrong here, it just means I'm misinformed, not brainwashed. Those are two different things.
And there's no need to be so judgemental and angry.

And since you want it, I will respond about your video.
I have read the article about the tests you refer to, and there are several things I wonder about it or have problems with.

First of all, why is this the first time I've heard of it? Being in support of legalization, I often hear lots of arguments against it, but this is the first time I've heard this argument. And that article was from 2009. So why hasn't that study made it's impact on all the anti-legalization people?

Second, if we give the study the benefit of the doubt, there is still a problem.
The study was done with the condition that you smoke as much marijuana as one can smoke tobacco within a certain timeframe.
Which is simply not possible.
A regular tobacco smoker who smoke tobacco each day, can smoke over 20-30 cigarettes per day, easily.
A regular pot smoker, if he smokes every day, he will smoke one or two, MAYBE three a day, if he is a hardcore smoker.
And most people who smoke pot and who has access to it does not smoke every day. Because it takes so much time.

So even IF there is credibility in that study, it only goes so far, because it's not possible to smoke nearly as much pot as one can smoke tobacco.

Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.

What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.Drug related crimes would drop significantly

What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.

2)It's historically proven that legalization of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol didn't eliminate said substance abuses, but neither did it stop the trades of black market bootlegged goods of said substances. Furthermore, organized criminal drug trade can still out compete government regulated program through exploitation and cost-cutting within the supply chain.

3)When money is in fact made of debt, the government and the public as a whole have no money to begin with.

1) Of course.

2) Legalization does not eliminate substance abuse, that is true. Nor does it remove the black market entirely.
However, when you look at countries like Netherlands, where all substance is legal, drug related crimes are far lower than in countries where most of these substances are illegal. Like in the US. Which is the same case as was with the mafia and the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's US. Though surely you already know that.

And while the black market is not gone, even for the things that are legal, it's still dramaticly reduced.
Because as far as I know, the vast majority of people buy their booze and cigarettes in the stores, not in the back alleys.

LemonyPandawrote:
this is why being a liberal is so popular nowadays. You can just stick your head in the sand, ignore all the facts, and just continue advocating policies that harm society. And the ironic part is, is that they actually think they're making society better. Who do you think you are judging people and telling them what they can or can't do?

LemonyPandawrote:
this is why being a liberal is so popular nowadays. You can just stick your head in the sand, ignore all the facts, and just continue advocating policies that harm society. And the ironic part is, is that they actually think they're making society better. Who do you think you are judging people and telling them what they can or can't do?

Ron Paul, a hardcore conservative strict constitutionalist, who predicted the 9/11 attack, 2008 stock market crash, AND occupy wallstreet, and has never smoked marijuana is a complete advocate of legalizing it. He just predicted that all the people in this nation are just gonna realize how ridiculous the prohibition of marijuana is (do you even know why it became illegal in the first place?) and change this country around.

Fuck big government telling everyone what to do. History has shown us prohibition does nothing but harm to society, and once again its negative effects are shown in society today. If you ignore these facts and continue sticking your head in the sand then it doesn't even matter what political party you affiliate yourself with, you just get categorized as the ignorant closeminded dumbasses of society.

IT SHOULD BE LEGAL!!!!! i bet 99 percent of the one's that say the no have never even tried it Yo cant ban a PLANT. Not only that but it hasn't killed anyone, EVER!! Heres the proof http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#Cause Also the fact that over 85 millions americans have tried it. America should have learned its lessons during the prohibition era, somethings realistically just cant be banned. Its sad a plant like cannabis is illegal. Its causes no long term affects http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2003/06_27_Grant.html. Please inform yourself and dont rely on other OPINIONS. Look at the FACTS and you will realize how foolish the prohibition of Cannabis.

this is my opinion on marijuana. Honestly, I think in small doses, marijuana is fine, just like alcohol. Take everything in moderation, and don't abuse it, just like how you shouldn't abuse other LEGAL substances like alcohol, fast food, or even gaming/internet addictions. There are MANY people who have been smoking marijuana for YEARS and there has been little to no damage done to their body whatsoever.

But even if it did do damage to your body, who are we to tell full grown adults what they can or can't do? In the end its all free choice and whatever you has its own consequences, you should research on it and make your own choices to decide whether or not to take up on marijuana smoking.

Your contradicting moral claim in the form of "shouldn't" statement, and an amoral stance on free choice, doesn't make your opinion convincing at all.

Moreover, when the sociologicalprocess for addictive behavior in humans only requires an "if, then maybe" situation of uncertainty in reward, in order to frame an abusive and manipulative pattern within the human brain due to the result of dopamine level going over the roof. The moment when someone believes that he might feel better if he consumes marijuana, that mindset would triggered his addictive behavior, because now he's perceiving the situation in the "if, then maybe" framework. No free-choice required.

Also, "free-choice" is really an illusion. Especially when considering the reality of how "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" can be done through the process of "framing", while OTOH humans aren't really in control of their own decision-making process.

Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.

Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
---- from "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? "

You're going off on a complete tangent.

I disagree, when you didn't identify just exactly what and how I've gone "complete tangent". Therefore you're making a baseless claim without factual evidence to prove it.

Well anything these days can be considered an addiction whether its marijuana, heroin, food, alcohol, or shopping. But when i say physically addictive..withdrawal and tolerance. Yah there is a physical tolerance with marijuana, but you dont see a consistent marijuana smoker shaking in his bed and sweating from withdrawal when they don't have their fix. While xanax is a legal prescription that is probably a lot stronger than alcohol and its withdrawal effects can cause death. All im trying to say is theres no logic in making marijuana illegal, when there are other legal substances that are a lot more dangerous that should be illegal. I just dont think anyone should get in trouble for possessing marijuana. Like why should someone not be able to get a job just because they smoke marijuana? I'd say, let the smokers smoke.

When you address my reply to your comment, learn to use the quote function in order to establish coherence, if you're not stone enough to care less. That being said:

1)Behavior addiction can be more dangerous to individuals over the long run, because it prevents them from making sound decisions.

How do drugs work in the brain to produce pleasure?
Most drugs of abuse directly or indirectly target the brain's reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter present in regions of the brain that regulate movement, emotion, cognition, motivation, and feelings of pleasure. The overstimulation of this system, which rewards our natural behaviors, produces the euphoric effects sought by people who abuse drugs and teaches them to repeat the behavior.(citation)

Marijuana is the odd drug out. To the early researchers, it did not look like it should be addictive. Nevertheless, for some people, it is. Recently, a group of Italian researchers succeeded in demonstrating that THC releases dopamine along the reward pathway, like all other drugs of abuse. Some of the mystery of cannabis had been resolved by the end of the 1990s, after researchers had demonstrated that marijuana definitely increased dopamine activity in the ventral tegmental area. Some of the effects of pot are produced the old-fashioned way after all--through alterations along the limbic reward pathway.(citation)

I saw Robin Williams recently talk about how he thought he was much funnier when he was doing cocaine, when he had that issue, than now. So perhaps more dopamine is related to more creativity. Dopamine, I think, changes our signal-to-noise ratio. That is, how accurate we are in finding patterns. If it's too low, you're more likely to make too many Type II errors. You miss the real patterns. You don't want to be too skeptical. If you're too skeptical, you'll miss the really interesting good ideas. Just right, you're creative, and yet you don't fall for too much baloney. Too high and maybe you see patterns everywhere. Every time somebody looks at you, you think people are staring at you. You think people are talking about you. And if you go too far on that, that's just simply labeled as madness. It's a distinction perhaps we might make between two Nobel laureates, Richard Feynman and John Nash. One sees maybe just the right number of patterns to win a Nobel Prize. The other one also, but maybe too many patterns. And we then call that schizophrenia.
---- from "Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception"

2)Just because there are legalized dangerous substances, that's no excuse for legalizing other less dangerous substances. Two wrongs don't make a right, to believe otherwise is a logic fallacy.

3)This is about legalizing marijuana consumption for recreation purpose, not private possession.You'll need a separate business license to grow and possess large amount of marijuana other than individuals consumption. Get with the program.

4)THC can remain within an individual's body for a long time. Since all businesses won't risk the consequence of hiring workers who can't make sound decision, They'll fire them in order to protect their own bottom-line. In the world of amoral business ethic, people are expendable, when the corporations are arbitrary "legal persons". That means they have every rights to reject workers that will cause them to loose profits.

How Long Can Marijuana Be Detected?
Some THC metabolites have an elimination half-life of 20 hours. However, some are stored in body fat and have a elimination half-life of 10 to 13 days. Most researchers agree that urine tests for marijuana can detect the presence of the drug in the body for up to 13 days.

However, there is anecdotal evidence that the length of time that marijuana remains in the body is affected by how often the person smokes, how much he smokes and how long he has been smoking. Regular smokers have reported positive drug test results after 45 days since last use and heavy smokers have reported positive tests 90 days after quitting.(citation)

Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.

What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.Drug related crimes would drop significantly

What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.

2)It's historically proven that legalization of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol didn't eliminate said substance abuses, but neither did it stop the trades of black market bootlegged goods of said substances. Furthermore, organized criminal drug trade can still out compete government regulated program through exploitation and cost-cutting within the supply chain.

3)When money is in fact made of debt, the government and the public as a whole have no money to begin with.

1) Of course.

2) Legalization does not eliminate substance abuse, that is true. Nor does it remove the black market entirely.
However, when you look at countries like Netherlands, where all substance is legal, drug related crimes are far lower than in countries where most of these substances are illegal. Like in the US. Which is the same case as was with the mafia and the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's US. Though surely you already know that.

And while the black market is not gone, even for the things that are legal, it's still dramaticly reduced.
Because as far as I know, the vast majority of people buy their booze and cigarettes in the stores, not in the back alleys.

3) True. But that is a thing that varies from country to country.

1)That makes all the difference, when you didn't provide sufficient justification with categorical reasoning, on why marijuana as a medicine should be used for recreational purpose. As in to "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion : hobby"(citation). Unless these recreational drug users aren't healthy, when the fact is they are mentally sick, because they can't refresh themselves without their dependence on psychoactive drug.

2)Crime rate on illegal drug use dropped because the human laws normalized drug dependency. Just like how Japanese rape crime is low because its business laws normalizes rape, so could legalization of psychoactive drug dependency normalize the surrendering of human dignity for profit. Just ask Islam with the legalization of slavery, and the Western colonists with the "Opium War".

Also, there's an overlap of reduced crime rate in the Netherlands due to legalized free abortion.

3)Doesn't matter, considering how the Norges Bank being Norway's central bank is a privatized for-profit organization, just like the US Federal Reserves. The fact that it serves to adjust the interest rate just like how the US central bank does, means that it operates on the same exponential growth function just like every other banks does. Which means all fiat currencies throughout the world will suffer from hyperinflation due to compounding.